THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
There still remains to be discussed, in connection with baptism, one
thing more--the manner of administering it.
In relation to this matter there is much division among professed
believers of the Bible. One class maintaining that the immersion of
the whole body in water is the only manner in which baptism can be
administered; that immersion, in fact, and immersion only, is baptism.
Others, however, while they admit that immersion is baptism, claim that
it may be performed in some other manner, by sprinkling or pouring
water on the candidates for the ordinance.
Both parties appeal to the original Greek from which baptism and the
verb baptize is derived, one insisting that it means immersion, and
to immerse only; while the others insist that in some connections
the words in the original may mean sprinkling or pouring as well as
immersion and to immerse. And as the commandment given to the apostles
to baptize all nations[A] is given without any reference to the manner
in which the ordinance is to be administered, they maintain it is
immaterial whether it is done by immersion or by sprinkling or pouring.
[Footnote A: Matt. xxviii, 19.]
It cannot be denied that an array of respectable testimony may be
drawn up in favor of both theories; but when the meaning of the terms
are interpreted in the light of the practice of the early Christians,
those who received the doctrine of baptism from the apostles and other
servants of Christ--nay, if interpreted by the manner in which these
very apostles administered the ordinance--it is evident that immersion
alone is the proper method for baptizing for the remission of sins,
and initiation into the Church of Christ, whatever other signification
may be attached to the words in other connections; for nothing is
more evident than that immersion is the manner in which baptism was
administered by them.
Of John the Baptist it is written: "And there went out unto him all
the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of
him _in the River Jordan_;"[B] and to this agrees also the testimony of
Matthew.[C]
[Footnote B: Mark i: 4.]
[Footnote C: Matt. iii: 5, 6.]
Again it is said of him that he baptized "in Aenon near Salim, because
there was much water there".[D] And it is said that "Jesus, when he was
baptized went up straightway out of the water;"[E] from which it is
evident that he had been down in the water. From these circumstances,
that is, from his baptizing _in_ Jordan, and near Salim "where there
was much water," and from Jesus going up out of the water after his
baptism, there can be no question but John baptized by immersion; and
there is nothing to lead us to suppose that he baptized in any other
manner.
[Footnote D: John iii, 23.]
[Footnote E: Matt. iii: 16; Mark i: 10.]
Take an account of a baptism which took place after the crucifixion
of Messiah, and we shall find the same method of administering the
ordinance observed. I allude to the baptism of the chamberlain of Queen
Candace, by Philip. This person was met by Philip in the highway, and
being invited to ride in the chamberlain's carriage he taught him
the Gospel. On belief taking hold of the chamberlain, as they came
to certain water, he inquired of Philip what hindered him from being
baptized. To which Philip answered: "If thou believest with all thine
heart thou mayest. And he answered and said: I believe that Jesus
Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still:
and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch;
and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the
Spirit caught away Philip that the eunuch saw him no more."[F]
[Footnote F: Acts viii: 36-39.]
There can be no two opinions as to the manner in which the eunuch was
baptized--it was by immersion. It would seem, too, that had Philip been
aware of any other method, that is, had he understood that sprinkling
or pouring would answer the purpose, he never would have put himself
and the chamberlain to the inconvenience of going down into the water.
It is a fair inference, under all the circumstances, that Philip knew
of no other method of baptism than by a burial in the water.
We have already referred to baptism being spoken of as being "born
of water,"[G] and to those paragraphs I call the attention of my
readers again. It will be seen that immersion best carries out that
idea; indeed, it is only by immersion and being brought forth out of
the water, in which a person is brought from one element (water) into
another (air), that a birth is represented. Sprinkling or pouring does
not represent a birth.
[Footnote G: Chapter xxi.]
In writing to the saints of Rome, Paul says; "Know ye not, that so many
of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Therefore we are _buried_ with him by baptism into death; that like as
Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so
we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been _planted_
together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness
of his resurrection."[H]
[Footnote H: Rom. vi: 3-5.]
In writing to the saints of Colosse, the same apostle reminds them that
they had been "_buried_ with him [Christ] in baptism, wherein also ye
are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God who hath
raised him from the dead."[I]
[Footnote I: Col. ii: 12.]
In these passages the terms "buried" and "planted" are in plain
allusion to the manner in which the saints had received the ordinance
of baptism, which could not have been by sprinkling or pouring, as
there is no burial or planting in the likeness of Christ's death, or
being raised in likeness of his resurrection in that; but in immersion
there is, and hence we conclude from all these circumstances that
baptism among the saints of God in those days was by immersion, and by
immersion alone.
Turning to other sources than the scriptures for information, we shall
find that the statement that immersion alone was practiced by the early
Christians, say for at least nearly three centuries, is sustained by
the most respectable testimony.
Speaking of baptism in the first century. Dr. Mosheim says: "In this
century, baptism was administered in convenient places, without the
public assemblies; and by immersing the candidates wholly in water."[J]
[Footnote J: Mosheim's Church History (Murdock), third edition, Vol. I,
page 87.]
Of the second century, the same learned author says: "Twice a year,
namely, at Easter and Whitsuntide, * * * baptism was administered by
the bishop, or by the presbyters acting by his command and authority.
The candidates for it were immersed wholly in water, with invocation of
the sacred Trinity, according to the Savior's precept."[K]
[Footnote K: Ibid, p. 137.]
Indeed, the first deviation from baptizing by immersion, occurs in
a case recorded by Eusebius, as happening in the third century. He
alludes to it in these detracting terms: "He [Novatian] * * * fell
into a grievous distemper, and it being supposed that he would die
immediately, he received baptism (being sprinkled with water), on the
bed where he lay, (if that can be termed baptism): Neither when he had
escaped that sickness, did he afterwards receive the other things which
the canon of the church enjoineth should be received."[L]
[Footnote L: Eusebius Eccl. Hist. b. vi, ch. 43.]
Even down to the close of the thirteenth century baptism by immersion
was the rule and sprinkling and pouring the exception.
Notwithstanding all these arguments, which are in their character
so conclusive, many worthy people there are whom they fail to
convince. What does this fact argue? That those who fail to understand
that baptism must be by immersion are woefully ignorant, or their
understanding willfully perverse? No; I would suggest that to them the
evidence is simply insufficient and unauthoritative, and that the fact
of it being so argues that there is need of some further instruction
from the Lord on the subject than is contained in the Bible; that there
is need of further revelation from God to settle the question.
In ushering in the Gospel in this dispensation the instruction so much
needed was given in April, 1830, and is as follows: "The person who is
called of God, and has authority from Jesus Christ to baptize, shall go
down into the water with the person who has presented him or herself
for baptism, and shall say, calling him or her by name--Having been
commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. Then shall he immerse him
or her in the water, and come forth again out of the water."[M]
[Footnote M: Doc. and Cov., sec. xx: 73, 74]
The Book of Mormon is equally plain on this point. When Jesus gave
authority to his servants among the Nephites to baptize, he said to
them: "Verily I say unto you, that whosoever repenteth of his sins
through your words, and desireth to be baptized in my name, on this
wise shall ye baptize them: behold, ye shall go down and stand in the
water, and in my name shall ye baptize them. And now behold, these are
the words which ye shall say, calling them by name, saying. Having
authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. And then shall ye
immerse them in the water and come forth again out of the water. And
after this manner shall ye baptize in my name."[N]
[Footnote N: III. Nephi xi: 23-27.]
There can be no question as to how baptism should be administered
after such instruction as this; while the very pressing need of such a
revelation to the Christian world is a great evidence in support of its
divine inspiration.